Who Is Allah?

[Eric]

Paul WV wrote:

<quoted text>
Says you, or bmz or both? I hardly think of you guys as being expert translators. I will stick with those that have been approved of by the Catholic Church.

Oh, really?

For you will not abandon me to Sheol, nor let your faithful servant see the pit.

http://bible.catholic.net/home.php...

[Shamma]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, for one thing I can understand Hebrew, and you can't
And, BMZ, an Arabic speaker, can follow what I say, since it is very similar
You, on the other hand, can not read Hebrew.
Ironically, there are many learned Christian clergy that CAN understand Hebrew. I know that for a fact because I know at least one Hebrew teacher who teaches at a seminary, and there are multiple books available that are marketed as Hebrew for Christians (usually BY Christians). Plus, there is an entire educational industry in Israel for Christians to this end as well.
AND I WOULD VENTURE THAT 100% OF ANY OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD NOT ONLY AGREE WITH MY EARLIER POST BUT WOULD ALSO CONSIDER YOU A TOTAL FOOL.
sorry - I tell it as it is

You need to get a new translator.

It may be added that this interpretation accords with the connection in which the word occurs. Though it may be admitted that the connection would not "necessarily" lead to this view, yet this interpretation is in entire harmony with the statements in the previous verses, and in the following verse. Thus, in the previous verse, the psalmist had said that "his flesh would rest in hope," - a sentiment which accords with either the idea that he would at some future period be raised from the grave, and would not perish forever, though the period of the resurrection might be remote; or with the idea of being raised up so soon that the body would not return to corruption, that is, before the change consequent on death would take place. The sentiment in the following verse also agrees with this view. That sentiment is, that there is a path to life; that in the presence of God there is fulness of joy; that at his right hand there are pleasures forevermore - a sentiment, in this connection, founded on the belief of the resurrection from the dead, and equally true whether the dead should be raised immediately or at some remote period. I infer, therefore, that the apostles Peter and Paul made a legitimate use of this passage; that the argument which they urged was derived from a proper interpretation of the language; that the fair construction of the psalm, and the fact that David "had" returned to corruption, fully justified them in the application which they made of the passage; and that, therefore, it was the design of the Holy Spirit to convey the idea that "the Messiah" would be raised from the dead without undergoing the change which others undergo in the grave; and that it was thus "predicted" in the Old Testament, that be would be raised from the dead in the manner in which he was.

[Shamma]

Frijoles wrote:

Those are all Christian sites.
Not everyone is as lazy and foolish as PaulWV

It is not lazy.
It is intelligence to stick to the truth.
And Paul sticks to the truth.
Ignoring truth is ignorance.

[Shamma]

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, really?
For you will not abandon me to Sheol, nor let your faithful servant see the pit.
http://bible.catholic.net/home.php...

Here we go again.
Your link didn't work.
I am prepared to give you a lesson in translating Psalm 16:10.
Its about 5 pages long.
Do you want me to begin?

[Paul WV]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, for one thing I can understand Hebrew, and you can't
And, BMZ, an Arabic speaker, can follow what I say, since it is very similar
You, on the other hand, can not read Hebrew.
Ironically, there are many learned Christian clergy that CAN understand Hebrew. I know that for a fact because I know at least one Hebrew teacher who teaches at a seminary, and there are multiple books available that are marketed as Hebrew for Christians (usually BY Christians). Plus, there is an entire educational industry in Israel for Christians to this end as well.
AND I WOULD VENTURE THAT 100% OF ANY OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD NOT ONLY AGREE WITH MY EARLIER POST BUT WOULD ALSO CONSIDER YOU A TOTAL FOOL.
sorry - I tell it as it is

What matters is that the message meant by the original writer is conveyed and not your twist on it. In Acts 2 and 13 we learn how the first Christians understood the passage and that is enough for me, for they knew those who talked to Jesus on the road to Emmaus and when He opened to them the Scriptures and how they talked of Him.

[Paul WV]

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, really?
For you will not abandon me to Sheol, nor let your faithful servant see the pit.
http://bible.catholic.net/home.php...

As I said before it does not matter how you want to translate the passage it is how the early Christians understood it; and they understood it as a prophecy of Jesus and His resurrection.

[Eric]

Shamma wrote:

<quoted text>Here we go again.
Your link didn't work.
I am prepared to give you a lesson in translating Psalm 16:10.
Its about 5 pages long.
Do you want me to begin?

Funny, it works for me.

But it doesn't matter. Paul says he only goes by the Roman Catholic Church approved translation. The translation I gave was the one approved by the US Conference of Bishops. Therefore, it meets the requirements set forth by Paul.

Here is the home page for the Bible cited. I am sure you can navigate to Psalm 16

http://bible.catholic.net

[JOEL]

BMZ (SINGAPORE) is a crypto-Jew. Alex is the same.

[Shamma]

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny, it works for me.
But it doesn't matter. Paul says he only goes by the Roman Catholic Church approved translation. The translation I gave was the one approved by the US Conference of Bishops. Therefore, it meets the requirements set forth by Paul.
Here is the home page for the Bible cited. I am sure you can navigate to Psalm 16
http://bible.catholic.net

Its a good site.
I will save it.
Shalom
Shamma

[Paul WV]

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny, it works for me.
But it doesn't matter. Paul says he only goes by the Roman Catholic Church approved translation. The translation I gave was the one approved by the US Conference of Bishops. Therefore, it meets the requirements set forth by Paul.
Here is the home page for the Bible cited. I am sure you can navigate to Psalm 16
http://bible.catholic.net

What it shows is that Jesus and His followers used the Greek Septuagint.

[Mooshla Urduhl Wobiya]

In the Book, whose name we shall not utter, He, whose true name no one now knows, it is rumored to be said that we should all go forth in a great crowd and speak the three sounds and make the ancient genuflection as one wave and then we should separate and disperse and go from that place and not thereafter refer or reflect thereupon ever again as that is the way and the knowing of that which shall prove fleeting and impermanent but of which some sense of moment of import shall forever remain though unknown in the vastness and truth of its meaning, as but a thread in the fabric of our forever thereafter empty days.

[bmz]

Paul WV wrote:

<quoted text>
Your argument is meaningless, since in Acts 2 and 13 the Christian community saw that it referred to Jesus and His resurrection. How did they come to know this? On the road to Emmaus Jesus opened the Scriptures to His disciples and explained how they refer to Him from the beginning.

For three years, the disciples could not understand a thing of what Jesus spoke. How much could Jesus teach and how much could they have learned within a short walk on the track?

In Acts 2, Peter lies boldly by saying, "32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it."

He and other disciples were not witnesses to the alleged resurrection.

And here I am opening your mind on the broadband, to show the deliberately twisted and distorted translations in the OT.

[bmz]

Paul WV wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't go by what the Gospel say but only what an uneducated 7th century war lord said. Jesus died on the cross, laid three days in the tomb and on the third day an angel rolled back the stone to the tomb and Jesus' resurrection was witnessed by the Roman guards.

Muhammad did not speak very much about Jesus and his life. He just recited out what was revealed to him from The LORD Almighty.

Jesus goes into the tomb on Friday eve. That is 24 hours on Saturday eve. Left early morning on Sunday, say 12 hours.

Total time in: 24 + 12 = 36 hours

NOBODY saw Jesus getting up! Your scripture agrees with me.

[bmz]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Psalm 16:10
Kee, lo t'azov nafshi l'shoal
For you will not leave my soul to shoal (i.e the pit)
lo tetain hasdicha
you will not give the righteous
l'rot shachat
to see the end (i.e. decay)

Thanks.

The verse is so easy to understand. There is no mention of Jesus in it.

[bmz]

Shamma wrote:

<quoted text>The Gospels of Jesus Christ have already been proven true.
Jesus Christ died on the cross and is risen from the dead by the glory of God The Father of heaven and earth.
Glory be to God in the highest, for God has freed mankind from the bondage of sin through His Son Jesus Christ.

No! And not at all. The gospels have not been proven true.

Let me show you how untrue the gospels are:

First the forgery known as Matthew 28:19

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, "

And compare it with Acts 2:37-38

"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles,“Brothers, what shall we do?”

Peter replied,“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Too many cooks spoiled the 'broth' of the NT.

So, brother Shamma, what would you do? Will you go with Matthew or Peter?

[bmz]

Paul WV wrote:

<quoted text>
Says you, or bmz or both? I hardly think of you guys as being expert translators. I will stick with those that have been approved of by the Catholic Church.

No one has claimed to an expert translator. The problem with you is that you have no knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and te non-scriptural language Greek.

Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic are very close. Idioms, figuratives, etc are strikingly similar. And that is why we can easily understand the context and true meanings of Jewish Scripture, without even knowing Hebrew.

By the way, there are many words, which are common among Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic but there is nothing common between Hebrew and Greek.

We just want you to try and compare different translations and try to detect wrong insertions, forgeries, etc.

[MUQ]

Excerpts from the Gospel of Barnabas, Part-68

Chapter 146 Prodigal Son

..Then Jesus said to them that were converted to repentance, and to his disciples: "* There was a father who had two sons, and the younger said:'Father, give me my portion of goods'; and his father gave it [to] him. And he, having received his portion, departed and went into a far country, where he wasted all his substance with harlots, living luxuriously. After this there arose a mighty famine in that country, such that the wretched man went to serve a citizen, who set him to feed swine in his property. And while feeding them he assuaged his hunger in company with the swine, eating acorns.

But when he came to himself he said:'Oh, how many in my father's house [are] feasting in abundance, and I perish here with hunger! I will arise, therefore, and will go to my father, and will say to him:'Father, I have sinned in heaven against you; do with me as you do to one of your servants.' The poor man went, and it came to pass that his father saw him coming from afar off, and was moved to compassion over him. So he went forth to meet him, and having come up to him he embraced him and kissed him.

The son bowed himself down, saying:'Father, I have sinned in heaven against you, do to me as to one of your servants, for I am not worthy to be called your son.' The father answered:'Son, do not say so, for you are my son, and I will not suffer you to be in the condition of my slave.' And he called his servants and said:'Bring new robes here and clothe my son, and give him new [garments]; give him the ring on his finger, and kill the fatted calf and we will make merry. For [this] son [of mine] was dead but has now come to life again; he was lost and now is found.'

Chapter 147 Contd.

While they were making merry in the house, the elder son came home, and hearing that they were making merry within, he marveled and called one of the servants, asking him why they were making merry in this way. The servant answered him:'Your brother [has] come [home] and your father has killed the fatted calf, and they are feasting.' The elder son was greatly angered when he heard this, and would not go into the house. Therefore his father came out to him and said to him:'Son, your brother [has] come. Come therefore and rejoice with him.'

The [elder] son answered with indignation:'I have always served you with good service, and you never gave me a lamb to eat with my friends. But as for this worthless fellow that departed from you, wasting all his portion with harlots, now that he is come you have killed the fatted calf!" The father answered:'Son, you are always with me and everything is yours; but this one was dead and is alive again, was lost and now is found; [that is why] we must rejoice.' The elder son was more angry, and said:'You can go and triumph [but] I will not eat at the table of fornicators." And he departed from his father without receiving even a piece of money. As God lives," said Jesus, "even so is there rejoicing among the angels of God over one sinner that repents."

Note: This parable is also recoded in Gospel of Luke-MUQ

(Abridged)

[bmz]

Shamma wrote:

<quoted text>On what higher consul above God do you base your reason and logic?

No matter what God did and said you disagree with Gods decisions.
Explain who that consul you confide with that you believe is above God?

All you have to do is to think and I never see you doing that.

[bmz]

Frijoles wrote:

Well, for one thing I can understand Hebrew, and you can't

And, BMZ, an Arabic speaker, can follow what I say, since it is very similar

You, on the other hand, can not read Hebrew.

Ironically, there are many learned Christian clergy that CAN understand Hebrew. I know that for a fact because I know at least one Hebrew teacher who teaches at a seminary, and there are multiple books available that are marketed as Hebrew for Christians (usually BY Christians). Plus, there is an entire educational industry in Israel for Christians to this end as well.

AND I WOULD VENTURE THAT 100% OF ANY OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD NOT ONLY AGREE WITH MY EARLIER POST BUT WOULD ALSO CONSIDER YOU A TOTAL FOOL.

sorry - I tell it as it is

That is correct and true. Must say it was a good assessment. Thanks

[uhuh]

it seems YHWH speaks only 2 lines in the NT, through alleged bat kol,
at the baptism "This is My son whom I love"
at the transfiguration (Gr. metamorphosis) "This is My son whom I love" again
to the crowd of Greeks "I glorified and again will glorify"

The Son speaks in riddles

The Ghost is just a mute dove